There's been a remarkable amount of drama surrounding Dick Armey's departure from FreedomWorks, culminating Friday with a stunning report from Media Matters, who interviewed the former House Majority Leader directly. Armey had all kinds of interesting insights to share with the progressive group, including tidbits on pay-for-play agreements with Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh, and the FreedomWorks' practice of charging activists to attend free events.

Though many of Armey's revelations should probably be taken with a grain of salt -- the former GOP leader seemed confused about some of the details he shared -- there was a larger question that puzzled nearly everyone: why in the world was Dick Armey dishing dirt to Media Matters?

The Daily Caller, a conservative outlet, tracked down the answer.

Dick Armey had no idea he was speaking to the left-wing Media Matters organization during an interview last week, he told The Daily Caller Tuesday. Instead, Armey thought he was chatting with the conservative Media Research Center...

4. And handsomely rewarded for both...nt

7. He may not ...

have known who he was talking to; but, I would argue that he DID know what he was talking about. Admissions against interests, given to whom one believes to be a trust-worthy/sympathetic news, are generally deemed trust-worthy, even from a disgruntled former employee.

12. Dick Armey Sucks

13. Great piece from MJ showing contract that caused Armey to leave. I don't think he accidentally

talked to anyone. He is trying to get a story out. It has everything to do with Matt Kibbe trying to keep the proceeds of a book written with Freedomworks staffers and resources, and ofcourse the coverup. I believe the millions he was paid to go (by a wealthy donor) was for him not to blow the whistle to the IRS. It's a hot mess. Armey's message needs to be getting as much press as possible.
This is one of those opportunities we have to show their illegal, immoral methods. Couldn't happen to a nicer bunch of d-bags.

"Host Chris Matthews asked why, if the Republicans are really the party of limited government, does the party have its candidates trying to get rid of contraception, and outlaw gay marriage and abortion. “Why don’t you stay out of people’s lives if you really wanted limited government?” asked Matthews.

The former lawmaker insisted that there were simply a few bad apple candidates, just like the Democrats have “had a few rather strange people,” too. When Matthews pointed out the GOP platform includes items about personhood and contraception, Armey insisted the Democrats also have “unusual” and “strange” items in their platform.

“Name one,” Matthews challenged.

“Homosexual marriage, all right. Abortion on demand,” Armey shot back. “These issues are in your platform. You don’t think it’s strange for these issues to be in your platform pointing in one direction, but you consider it outrageous that the other party has the same issues pointing in the another direction in their platform.”

Matthews responded, “The Democratic party generally supports Roe vs. Wade. It does not support ‘abortion on demand,’” adding the issue of gay marriage is going to be decided state by state, not nationally."